Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hi James, On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 04:59:35PM +, Gould, James wrote: > On 5/17/22, 8:56 AM, "Tom Harrison" wrote: >> I think this approach could work in principle, but I don't think it's >> in accordance with the current text: >> >> - RFC 7480 has "[t]he extension identifier is used as a pre

[regext] AD Review: draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai

Hi all, thanks for sending this along. And thanks for including Section 7. 1) In Section 3, you have: "The validation rules introduced in RFC 6531 are considered to be followed." I don't quite understand this sentence. Do you mean this? "It is assumed that addresses used with this extension w

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Tom, Thank you for your thoughts on the proposal. I include my responses embedded below prefixed with "JG - ". -- JG James Gould Fellow Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com On 5/17/22, 8:56 AM, "Tom Ha

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hi James, (Replying to the original mail, but taking into account replies to it to date as well.) On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 03:44:01PM +, Gould, James wrote: > Scott and I discussed this offline, and below is a proposal for the > RDAP Extension Registry registrations that meets the language in